Reneging on Jersey Shore tax hike could expose NJ to legal battle

Gov. Chris Christie says there’s still a chance he could revoke the “Snooki subsidy,” the Economic Development Authority’s $420,000 tax credit awarded to the controversial MTV show, “Jersey Shore.”

Christie should think twice. While a Situation smackdown might be good for him politically (here and nationally), a lawsuit is likely to follow. And it’s not one the state is likely to win.

Look, spending taxpayer money for a show about a bunch of nitwits who have logged more time in tanning beds than classrooms is infuriating. But reneging on the money will invite an army of MTV lawyers.

Let’s walk through this:

The legislation that created the tax credit is blind to content, and New Jersey hasn’t empowered an authority to make content judgments.

In the case of “Jersey Shore,” a commission determined that the show met the entertainment criteria, according to the law, then passed the show (and other tax credit candidates) to the EDA.

That group examined the financial criteria — how much the producers of the first season spent in New Jersey, how and where the money was spent, etc. Based on the recommendations of the two panels, the tax credit was awarded.

If Christie vetoes the credit, producers will tell a judge: We met the law’s criteria and were awarded the money, but it was arbitrarily revoked by a politically motivated governor.

Does that sound like a legal battle the state can win?

Going to court to protect the state’s values would make sense if the show (or movie) approved for a tax credit were about white supremacists, pedophiles or some other content we all agree is unquestionably repulsive. But “Jersey Shore,” as much as it insults our intelligence and the state’s name, doesn’t rise to that level.